This always make me think of ‘Bloom County’ where Milo and Oliver objected to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Grnadpa then told the story as Pitch Black and Seven Big Honkies.
Carry on.
Thanks for the correction on the founding of Notre Dame by French Jesuits. But we are still coming to different conclusions. As a Catholic institution, it chose to use what was commonly considered a slur against themselves because it reflected something that they felt was a positive comment on their institutional identity. I think this is substantially different from the discussion of institutions that selected a slur aimed at someone else because they liked some aspects of the image.
For the claim that Indian mascots are intended to be compliments, I would say that they’re in the same category as the expression “work like a nigger.” Sure, this is a compliment, because it means that Black people are hard-working! Who wouldn’t want to be hard-working? :rolleyes:
Appropos of pretty much nothing, I’d also like to point out that while we can sit around and think of examples of other ethnic groups used as mascots, the sheer numbers of Indian mascots outweigh any other group by a huge margin. I remain unconvinced that holding up the Fighting Irish is particularly useful in this discussion. The problem is not that one school is called the Fighting Sioux, it’s that the volume of Indian mascots is bolstering an already problematic stereotype of Indian people.
I also disagree with this, although once again, I’m afraid I don’t have anything Pit-ish to say about it. I am not claiming that the Indian mascots are the worst of the Indian’s problems, or even close to the top of the list. But language and ideas are incredibly intertwined. The images of Indian mascots, even when the intention may be to show a brave and strong person, serve to reinforce the idea that Indians are wild and savage. And before anyone points out that he or she is perfectly capable of enjoying an Indian mascot without making negative assumptions aobut Indian people, I’m not targeting this against any particular person. As always, when discussing things on the SDMB, this seems a little like preaching to the choir. By self-selection, this population tends to enjoy things like recreational critical thinking. On a national scale, however, the stereotype of Indians is overwhelmingly negative as well as wildly inaccurate. It is very much a problem, and mascots are a part of that problem.
I suppose that’s true to some extent – I was just making the point that sometimes teams have names that do NOT reflect “admiration”. In the case of the Criminals, it began as a derogatory association with the Yuma Territorial Prison. The school then decided to use the name for itself so that opponents had no leverage with it.
Just 'cause we’re Criminals, though, it is no reflection of admiration for criminals in general. Positive attributes or no, it isn’t going to come off as a positive affirmation of a criminal lifestyle.
Just a side note – I wonder if mascots like ours don’t make things worse for the P.C. issue. I mean, I can see how, if I were Indian, and I saw team names such as Indians, Criminals, Pirates, and such, I could take offense. In that case it is not so much that Indian is an offensive term alone, but when lumped with a bunch of groups typically considered dangerous or unsavory, it could acquire a negative connotation.
True, and aside from that not everyone would agree that attributes such as “dangerous” or “ferocious” are entirely positive in any case. But I think the names usually reflect romanticised ideas rather than actual people - as you say, the name “Criminals” doesn’t reflect any admiration for actual criminals. Although the name may, in context, conjure up images of the daring recklessness of storybook criminals - bank robbers or train robbers and the like - in reality we all know that criminals are often cowards and there’s nothing heroic about it.
So I think that if the names help to spread an image of modern-day Indians as wild, reckless savages, they certainly should be changed. I know that they don’t contribute to any such perception for me, but I guess I can’t say how true that is for the average American.
New York Yankees, anyone?
A lot of places, that’s an insult.
Green Bay (Meat) Packers?
New England Patriots, with their sterotypical Minuteman Mascot?
Free association can be a terrible thing. I went from
Green Bay (Meat) Packers
to
Green Bay (Fudge) Packers
which is the kind of joke a Minnesotan would make
which reminded me of a joke:
Q: Why doesn’t Iowa have a pro football team?
A: Because if they got one, then Minnesota would want one, too.
Well, as I noted, the question is, do the Irish object? Just because all Catholics were referred to as “Irish” for a period of time certainly doesn’t give Notre Dame the right to appropriate the Irish cultural heritage. It certainly doesn’t make using a gross caricature of a “fighting” Irish leprauchan to perpetuate a demeaning stereotype, acceptable, does it?
I’m not sure I agree. I don’t see how it’s qualitatively different than the “Fighting Irish” example. It’s true that this phrase carries a great deal more cultural baggage, however, someday, when the attitudes that make it so offensive are finally gone, “nigger,” too, will lose its force as a racial ephithet.
Of course, there’s no way this will happen, but if you want to completely destroy the “power” of the word “nigger,” change the name of the “New York Yankees” to the “New York Niggers.” Once Roger Clemens gives an interview about how he’s proud to be a Nigger and how he’d always wanted to be a Nigger since he played in Little League, it’s all over but the shouting. The word will become a complement because you’ll have re-defined the idea with which it is associated. Of course, this won’t end racism anymore than the successive rejection of “colored” and “negro” as acceptable racial designations did.
I can’t see how. Some mascots might be individually objectionable depending on how they depict Indians. However, the word “indian” itself is contentless. Many American Indians refer to themselves as, well, as American Indians. The government has a bureau of Indian Affairs. etc., etc. “Indian” just doesn’t have the same negative connotations as “nigger” does. Ironically, PC efforts to remove the word “Indian” may well result in giving it a negative connotation, however.
Once again, I disagree. I doubt that anyone thinks of modern Indians as “wild and savage.” In any event, the real issue should be the ideas behind the words, not the words. This illustrates a very real danger of some of these efforts to eliminate “offensive” names and language. Too many of us think we’re doing some great good deed plus, we get to be righteously indignant at the same time. In reality, we haven’t really done anything but we feel smug because we’ve “done our part” so we can ignore the real problems.
Rather than engage in an orgy of PC bowderlization, American Indians and their supporters should use the prevalence of Indian imagery and names to re-enforce the points they want to make. Would they really prefer being ignored all together? Would they really want to see a press release like the following?
"The Cleveland Indians announced today that they would be changing their team name. "We originally chose the name “Indian” because it symbolized many of the traits we wanted to emulate, including a deep sense of communal loyalty and the willingess to fight on against overwhelming odds. Sadly, American Indians living on reservations today present a different image to the world. They suffer from many social ills, including high rates of alcholism and unemployment. Many Indian tribes also derive a great deal of their revenue from gambling. As this does not convey the image we want for our team, we are dropping the name “Indian.” In order to symbolize those traits of solidarity and fortitude we believe so important, our team will now be known as the "Cleveland Palestinians."
Well, it could happen!
I must object to the fact that this team gets to be named the Butte Pirates when there isn’t even a single softball team called the Bull Dykes. I demand inclusion!
Seriously, though, I believe that the reason behind many of these names is only a back-handed compliment, as they were meant to strike fear into their opponents. They were chosen to represent the most fierce, bloodthirsty, kickass images they could come up with. If they had some regional symbolism, all the better. I suppose you could interpret this to be an admiration of sorts.
I do think it’s extremely silly to go to such great lengths to change the names of these teams, though. While they’re so busy pointing out that these names might be politically incorrect, are they actually doing a damned thing to promote equal rights for minority groups or actively discourage discrimination? Are they including anything in the curriculums of these schools to educate the students about other cultures and their own heritage? Changing the names of school mascots almost seems to defeat the purpose of furthering acceptance.